The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Friday August 25 2006

In the article below the writer referred to news reports that George Galloway MP had met one of the alleged terror suspects. Mr Galloway has told the Guardian: "To the best of my knowledge I have never met this man and certainly do not know him."

The words "alleged terror plot" have cropped up all over the media since August 10 when 23 British Muslims were held in police raids. But readers and viewers of these reports might be forgiven for forgetting the "alleged" and concentrating on more unambiguous headlines such as "plot to blow up nine jets foiled" - not to mention statements by the home secretary and deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police such as "we have stopped an attempt to commit mass murder on an unimaginable scale".

Much information that could be regarded as potentially highly prejudicial poured out almost immediately, mostly from unattributable sources but also from the government and then from officials in the US and Pakistan. We even learned, bizarrely, that one of the terror suspects had met controversial MP George Galloway.

Newspapers were full of photographs of the accused - often school snaps as these were the best available - on the assumption that identity would not be a legal issue, and there were damaging leaks of things that had been found at the houses searched, from guns to cash and cannabis. Those arrested are as entitled to a fair trial as a shoplifter or someone who had actually committed a crime as serious as murder. So what happened to our contempt of court laws?

The home secretary seems to have woken up to the risk of prejudice. Perhaps he has learnt from his predecessor David Blunkett, who made comments about a terror suspect's arrest in 2003 that led to the attorney general having a look at the media coverage and the chairman of the Bar Council pointing out that it was unwise to engage in "bad-mouthing" suspects. So within a couple of days of the arrests, Reid and the attorney general were warning newspapers to be careful, although the following day the home secretary revealed that at least four terror plots against Britain had been foiled since July 7 2005. Lord Goldsmith's warnings were little heeded as newspapers have continued with a series of revelations about the lives of the suspects.

Are we likely to see any editors, or indeed the home secretary, jailed for contempt of court if the published material creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the trials of the 23 (or however many may actually face trial) suspects in 2007 or 2008? It seems not.

The former Conservative Northern Ireland secretary, Tom King, made remarks in the House of Commons that led to the collapse of a trial involving an alleged IRA terrorist yet avoided spending any time in one of his own prisons.

What protects editors is the number of arrests made. The courts have acknowledged in a series of cases that even prejudicial material published at the time of arrests fades in the minds of potential jurors, so ensuring a fair trial (where defendants can still be assumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise). With so many possible defendants here, even massively prejudicial allegations (such as the discovery of a martyrdom tape) does not, it can be argued, taint every member of such a large group. The jury will be presented with evidence rather than old press cuttings and there may be several trials.

One wonders if government officials will come to appreciate that they can get away with the release of much more sexy information about suspects - making their ministers look tough - if the authorities fill up police vans full of suspects rather than a couple of police cars. A further complication, which facilitated damaging coverage, was the international dimension of the alleged terror plot, with government officials in Pakistan and the US releasing information about the plot and those associated with it. Such announcements are given protection in libel law of qualified privilege - as they are for the good purpose of providing the public with appropriate information - so there is no risk of a libel claim from any of the suspects. If those seized are not convicted, huge libel claims are a very real possibility.

The law of contempt can punish British newspapers for reporting foreign officials' comments about ongoing criminal cases, but the Human Rights Act equation is firmly on the side of freedom of expression. The intrusions into the private life of the suspects, and the risk to their right to a free trial, have to be balanced against hundreds of thousands who have had their flights disrupted and who are entitled to know why now, rather than in a couple of years' time.

Editors have taken the window of opportunity, afforded to them by the size and international scope of the alleged plot, to intrude into the lives of the suspects. But the window is being shut as cases start to be processed by the police and then the courts. One can expect a series of court orders to muzzle the media, and the trial(s) may have to be delayed to let the dust settle - as has happened in other terrorism cases.

But the alleged plot, the understandably huge public appetite for information about the plotters and the willingness of the authorities to talk about it, are straining our contempt laws to breaking point. The law insists that the same rules should apply to everyone.

But if the press has felt free to accuse some of those arrested of being fanatics - who would kill their own kids or are hooked on drink, dope and sex, and had guns and a huge stash of cash to buy plane tickets (the Sun, August 14) - and it subsequently transpires that any defendants received a fair trial, then there is an increasing impetus towards the American style of justice, familiar to us all through Hollywood, where prosecutors outline their cases at press conferences rather than wait to address a jury, and defence attorneys feel compelled to respond. Perhaps international terrorism will create a different, international standard of court reporting in an internet age where anyone really interested in newsworthy suspects can access foreign newspaper reports.